Attribute Maxes in BRP0

[Tywyll]

Hey,

What are the attribute maxes in BRP? I assume the standard 21 for humans, does that include INT and POW? What about non-humans, how do you figure out their maxes?

Cheers!

[frogspawner]

It's the good old 'max rollable +1 per die' formula.

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

It's the good old 'max rollable +1 per die' formula.

Ah, and here I was hoping it was max you can roll + minimum you an roll.

Are int and pow limited?

[badcat]

I think that is the same thing.

Whether INT and POW are limited depend on which version of BRP you are playing. Early Stormbringer depended on higher and higher levels of INT and POW to become capable of summoning more powerful entities, for instance. It also was the source of some dissatisfaction with that game, because the wizards tended to have the best weapon skill bonuses too. INT and POW made you a better fighter as well as a better sorcerer...

[Tywyll]

Ah, that's a good point. Then again, I haven't played with attribute bonuses much in the last several years (Elric! and CoC being my main BRP games in the last several years).

I suppose one could easily cap that bonus for non-magical skills if its a problem.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by badcat

It also was the source of some dissatisfaction with that game, because the wizards tended to have the best weapon skill bonuses too. INT and POW made you a better fighter as well as a better sorcerer...

Which is why it's an optional system in BRP.

[badcat]

Touche', Jason.

I still prefer Stormbringer 1...I find it easier to ADD or modify rules, usually, rather than have them as options (it's easier to houserule than pick and choose from a toolkit, I think). That is one reason I have stayed with BRP rather than use Hero or GURPS. Players see stuff and want to know why we aren't doing THAT. Then again, maybe the feel will be different with BRP. But I am hesitant to buy in, and this is one reason.

Also, it made sense that someone who was smarter and luckier would be a better natural fighter, at least as long as he wasn't a total wuss physically. And my favorite character in D&D was the fighter/magic-user. It's just me.

This is probably a whole new thread...

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by badcat

Also, it made sense that someone who was smarter and luckier would be a better natural fighter, at least as long as he wasn't a total wuss physically. And my favorite character in D&D was the fighter/magic-user. It's just me.

It's a bit of a muddle, actually.

For Stormbringer 1st edition (my absolute favorite incarnation of the BRP system, bar none), it made sense that Elric was good in swordsmanship because of his incredible cunning and strength of will (his high INT and POW).

Having a system that supports the licensed intellectual property is a good thing.

However, Theleb K'aarna was absolutely no physical threat, but he had comparable bonuses due to the high INT and POW scores. The way the system worked, he should have been quite competent with any weapon he'd put his hand to. The same with Myshella, who was in no way a fighter.

Also, since BRP allows for mutations and super powers that greatly increase characteristics, it should be the GM's choice whether to allow them.

And on another topic, perhaps suitable for another thread, I'm uncertain about the perceived difference between an optional rule and a house rule. As I see it, most of the optional rules are simply houserules or houseruled systems that have been printed for ease of access and use.

[badcat]

Yes, but Theleb K'aarna was 'potentially' a good fighter. One of the fun things about Stormbringer was the 'play what you get' factor. Like, a pc could start off as a kid right off the farm, and have good stats for a fighter, and still be 40% best weapon. And so on, but you already know all that. It was a positive for me, anyway.

As for the other thing, about houserules? Most people around here play D&D, which game has the philosophy of empowering the players with 'builds', without much regard to empowerment for the GM. That leaks over and when they make a character for a different game they often bring certain expectations of power level and so on. So I find that it is easier to sell a game with a simple base. The new BRP book has a simple base, but a lot of tinsel (options) too. I guess my main concern boils down to my comfort level and being able to draw players without the game turning into something I don't enjoy running or playing anymore.

You say SB1 is your favorite version of BRP? Then, just out of simple curiosity, why didn't you use it as the basis for the new book instead of SB5?

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by badcat

As for the other thing, about houserules? Most people around here play D&D, which game has the philosophy of empowering the players with 'builds', without much regard to empowerment for the GM. That leaks over and when they make a character for a different game they often bring certain expectations of power level and so on. So I find that it is easier to sell a game with a simple base. The new BRP book has a simple base, but a lot of tinsel (options) too. I guess my main concern boils down to my comfort level and being able to draw players without the game turning into something I don't enjoy running or playing anymore.

But why not simply say, "We aren't using those rules" or "We are using these options, but not those options"? How would that be any different from saying, "We are playing BRP but using these Houserules"?